dmcoco84

Do I get points for only editing one of them?

And we don't care about your country; Mind Your Business! This is my business. This is an international forum. And I know for a fact you do not speak for all Americans when you say this. I know there are plenty of people on both sides of the border who think our neighbours are just great! And we all tend to ignore the feeble rants of xenophobes like yourself. Why... I have celebrated July 1st (Canada Day) AND July 4th (your independence day) one right after the other, on both sides of the border, with the same people, both Canadian and American. Mind Your Business... is a, "Concept": See Benjamin Franklin. Xenophobe... I was directly addressing your statement. You don't have a right to own, and that's fine, we don't care. Our nation is based on the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. We, do, have a right to self defense; a self evident truth, but further protected by the Second. But, I'm a xenophobe. Ha!

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/08/02/unreal-charlie-rangel-calls-tea-partiers-same-group-of-white-crackers-who-fought-against-civil-rights/ Because of this, Rangel said the Tea Party could be defeated using the same tactics employed against Jim Crow. What a disgusting human being.

And how exactly would we prove that fracking is unsafe, if we stop fracking, and stop studying it?

A Weak job of it... No it doesn't; that's so biased. If it were proven that "it" were not well issues, nor negligence in transferring waste water from the pond to trucks... but due to the fracking fluids and/or the process itself, then fracking would stop. But there is more evidence currently that it doesn't contaminate ground water; and we need more research for the rest of the issues, as repeatedly stated. I'm amazed that you think this video supports any of the arguments made in this thread... This is government collusion with business for profit, along with gross negligence. No where have I seen that US companies are transferring the waste as the German company was/is. I was laughing at the stupidity of the company the whole time they were explaining the PE Pipes. I do feel bad for the people with cancer... But this doesn't help any case against fracking.

Well shit Sherlock, could, could, could... but so far, NOT. Arsenic, barium, strontium and selenium occur naturally at low levels in groundwater. But the release says fracking activities could elevate their levels. And if any of these issues turned out to be due to faulty wells, which would be similar to the BP spill, just with different outcomes... we need to fix the problem with the well, not stop the activity.

That too...

And now to a, as my 6th grade English teacher would say, "Reading is Fundamental", post: Seems to me that posting such a simplistic, "this is right and everything else is wrong" rant about a very complicated subject is the very height of arrogance, don't you think? Maybe... if that were what I posted; which I didn't. Not even sure how this is a rant: Looking forward to the USA becoming the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas... while laughing at all the climate change idiocy of wanting everything changed over to NG; when its still a hydrocarbon, and is in no way clean, nor "cleaner" to the point that it would make any difference if man made climate change were not utter bull shit; instead of what it is, a tool of power and control. Now, here's were reading is fundamental, and you make yourself look ridiculous. Though I do love the blaze, I posted their story instead, purposefully, to see if anyone would make idiotic comments like the ones you have, above; given the previous comment about the blaze in this thread. If you pop over to NPR, they have the same story; Posted at 550pm... with the blaze posting at 845pm. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=203504050 The Blaze - "PITTSBURGH (TheBlaze/AP)" NPR - "PITTSBURGH (AP)" So, this is not a Glenn Beck story, it's the AP, with only slight variation between the two. You've shown your bias, as well as that you didn't actually read the story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qileP4bAzek nuclear has the possibility of a unrepairable global accident and generates tons of dangerous spent fuel we have no place to store; oil, as you point out, comes from countries that we might be better off not supporting; coal dumps massive amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere , wind and solar are not yet efficient enough to really contribute and their output requires some type of storage; and this isn't the crowd to talk to about energy conservation as we -- myself included -- like using lots of Jet A and megawatts of electricity (in wind tunnels) for our own amusement. Agree. would be about the specifics of how to best use all of the resources we have available to get the best cost (meaning all types of costs, not just $) / benefit results. Pretty simple... return to the Constitution, get the Federal government out of the things they have no authority to be doing. Yeah ...NPR... 3rd paragraph: Although the results are preliminary — the study is still ongoing — they are the first independent look at whether the potentially toxic chemicals pose a threat to people during normal drilling operations. But DOE researchers view the study as just one part of ongoing efforts to examine the impacts of a recent boom in oil and gas exploration, not a final answer about the risks.

Exactly

Where have you ever seen me say that R&D in solar, wind, and biofuels should not be done? Where have you seen me say that I would not want them used, even if they were viable and affordable? I have however, repeatedly said, that the Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to be "investing" in whatever they deem they should. States however can do anything they want; many are doing so. And if the Federal government were not stealing and wasting so much of OUR money, there would be even more money in the hands of those venture capitalists that have and would continue to fund those needs; when the government isn't screwing with it. Absolutely. Not sure what that means... Coal fire plants are capturing incredible amounts of byproduct currently. And the associated technology is not only increasing exponentially, it is doing so faster than any of the alternative technologies. If we were able to capture 100%, would you still be against coal? 1/4th of the worlds coal, if i recall...? Yeah, its called Human Nature. And its too expensive, because of the EPA, not because it just is. If coal mines are polluting the surrounding areas in various ways, there are laws in place. Just like with the Koch brothers... present the evidence, and prosecute them. Its not ready now... tough shit. When its ready ...viable and cost effective... Let Me Know! Never said it.

"Moral or ethical" are not considerations in the fossil fuels buisiness; they're obstacles to the status quo and profits. Profit is a good thing... Not sending money to Saudi Arabia is even better. Profit margin is something people like you need to look at. The status quo, is the Federal government violating its enumerate powers.

After re-reading your statements, multiple times, I think the problem here is... like with stem cell research when Bush was in office: Its not whether things should be done or not... its whether or not the Federal government, not only should, but has the Constitutional ability without amendment, to be STEALING money from individuals to "invest" into whatever they deem is good/smart/needed. It's Not Your Job! Its not in your enumerated powers. Fuck FDR and Teddy. States can do whatever they want. California can waste all the taxpayer money they want... but I prefer to live in a state that hasn't been smoking crack. Maybe, if they were smoking some of that cannabis instead, their brains would be working much better.

You sound like Hillary Clinton. Not a compliment.

Two more words; Bull Shit. Make some threads, I call... Bull Shit. Still waiting for those blaze articles that you call conspiracy theory's.

Given the large PDF that was posted... Which chemicals do YOU have a problem with? Even though they are not contaminating the ground water.

And yet another subject change.

lol

Again... see my first post this morning. That article refutes itself... more research is needed on all fronts. Fracking fluid is not contaminating ground water, methane is not harmful to drink, and until further research is done... easy fix; buy a methane detector.

You have yet to post a single thing that can scientifically refute it. The article refutes itself.

Please show the peer reviewed scientific paper that "debunks" this paper I referenced earlier. In particular, I'm curious to see the "debunking" of the carbon isotope data. http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/methane-contamination-of-drinking-water-accompanying-gas-well-drilling Peer-review... Whoopty Doo. This article doesn't need to be debunked... see my first post this morning.

What drives your inability to believe that there may be any downsides whatsoever to fossil fuels? I think this is also a manipulative statement. A reasonable fact finder would not frame a statement like that. In this thread, the issue is getting the hydrocarbon out of the ground and the issues around it, not the burning aspect. And once again... those non-fossil fuel sources of energy that are constant touted, are not ready in a capacity to replace what have; unless we are talking nuclear.

See previous post... methane.

He won't believe it because he simply does not want to. Give it up. Oh and I completely understand. Sometimes it's difficult to admit that the industry a person belongs to profits on the ill heath of others and the destruction of the planet. The lie he tells himself daily is better than him facing the truth. Still . . . hard to deny the actual science. He does his best though. Methane... not harmful to drink. How does he or I "belong to that industry"?

He won't believe it because he simply does not want to. Give it up. See my last post.

Interesting... the article, and source. Being no longer in a zombie like state, I re-read this article, and will re-read the rest of your comments after it as well. But... Can you do something for me? Can you list out, itemize them in order of most critical to least, each of the problems (simply stated) that exist and why we should not be doing Hydraulic Fracturing because of them? This statement is manipulative. Additionally, from your own source: "The researchers did not find evidence that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing had contaminated any of the wells they tested, allaying for the time being some of the greatest fears among environmentalists and drilling opponents." "Methane is not regulated in drinking water, and while research is limited, it is not currently believed to be harmful to drink. But the methane is dangerous because as it collects in enclosed spaces it can asphyxiate people nearby, or lead to an explosion." "The report noted that as much as a mile of rock separated the bottom of the shallow drinking water wells from the deep zones fractured for gas and identified several ways in which fluids or the gas contaminants could move underground: The substances could be displaced by the pressures underground; could travel through new fractures or connections to faults created by the hydraulic fracturing process; or could leak from the well casing itself somewhere closer to the surface." "The geology in Pennsylvania and New York, they said, is tectonically active with faults and other pathways through the rock. They noted that leaky well casings were the most likely cause of the contamination but couldn’t rule out long-range underground migration, which they said “might be possible due to both the extensive fracture systems reported for these formations and the many older, uncased wells drilled and abandoned.” "In an interview, Jackson said that gas was more likely to migrate underground than liquid chemicals. Based on his findings, he doesn’t believe the toxic chemicals pumped into the ground during fracturing are likely to end up in water supplies the same way the methane did. “I’m not ready to use the word impossible,” he said, “but unlikely.” "For their assumptions to hold up there would have to be more than just the occasional bad cement job," he said. "They are implying that where you see hydraulic fracturing you should expect to see elevated methane. We are aware of faulty cement jobs. But we don't believe that it is common and we certainly don't believe that it is universal." I do not see how this article helps any case you are making; hurts it quite frankly. However, I am completely fine with more research and testing on all fronts. Not ok with the following: Which has nothing to do with this article, nothing to do with methane, and both this article and the OP, state that fracking fluid is not contaminating ground water.